|
Post by drewdawg265 on Jun 28, 2012 18:30:03 GMT -6
Since we are discussing to stay extreme once you are established or talented I started thinking of who the best teams are at the college level that are extreme. I would like to hear the opinions of others as well. Maybe this could be another thread but oh well. My thoughts are; oregon ducks, auburn with cam newton, texas tech under leach, and boise state have been great examples of teams that have been highly successful and extreme. Does anyone have any other examples or disagree with the teams I have listed? Great topic by the way.
|
|
|
Post by powerfootball71 on Jun 28, 2012 19:00:27 GMT -6
Since we are discussing to stay extreme once you are established or talented I started thinking of who the best teams are at the college level that are extreme. I would like to hear the opinions of others as well. Maybe this could be another thread but oh well. My thoughts are; oregon ducks, auburn with cam newton, texas tech under leach, and boise state have been great examples of teams that have been highly successful and extreme. Does anyone have any other examples or disagree with the teams I have listed? Great topic by the way. Agree with one as being extreme Texas tech-- numbers speak for them self I do think they get to much credit for being successfull and June Jones don't get enuff. Don't agree with the rest Oregon-- extreme in there tempo but they mix run and pass well. No doubt on there success. Auburn-- remember them pretty balanced. Had to much talent to be classed as extreme and had a defense most others in the conversion did not. Success 1 ring but what else? Boise-- don't see it great success but pretty basic lots of shifting some trick plays but extreme? Is pick tcu for there d before boise as extreme. Others not mentioned. Navy- the big run with pj and ken. Whould it have been different if they were not a independent and played the same teams year in year out? Think gt is awnsering that. All the air raid guys . Baylor Houston west Virginia ok state have to see them do it a few times in a row. But teams like Wisconsin Michigan state Stanford Virginia tech have similar places in the standings the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by shotgunfivewide5 on Jun 28, 2012 19:15:29 GMT -6
please understand i agree with everyone that no one is going to be great without great coaching, that of course is the key and repping any plan is the key. As the previous poster stated what is contrarian now used to be old school, like the single wing. I have coached the I offense and no matter how much we repped we could not move the football. Since we have involved tghe quarterback in the offense both running and passing it has made us much better playing 11 on 11. Add a little miss-direction, multiple formations, motions, shifts, trades and we are hopefully able to slow down the instincts of the defense just a split-second. To me it is able beating the players more than beating the coaches. there is nothing special about running an isolation play but by putting our team in a 2 x 2 set and running a man across in jet motion and then running the quarterback behind the tb or fb in an isolation play can sometimes give even the best defense a second of pause. For us lining up in a pro set and running the isolation would have much different results for us.
nothing contrarian about it but window dressing, my advantage for my kids was not athleticism but the abiltiy to adapt and learn, being smart was our key, our advantage: using formations, shifts, trades, and motions, throw in a little no-huddle since we have being doing since 2000 and that allowed us to be competitive...plus like you said coaching our tail off
listen if i had kids i could line up in the I or most offenses and run7 or 8 plays it should would make making practices schedules and practice plans much simplier....i have never had that type of kid...not wanting to be different for difference sake...it is just what has worked for us...did not mean to make anyone mad...great conversation by the way
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jun 28, 2012 21:59:51 GMT -6
As far as adding more when you become established, I don't think you have to....at least at the HS level. I was part of a program that grew from 2 wins a season to year in and out state contender. Part of this change was growth in the weight room and on the track (so in other words getting better athletes) but also during that growth we had a system and kept it simple.
As we became more established I had a lot of people saying "we should add this, that, and this" But in the end I figured we didn't need it (note I am speaking from a defensive side). If we are already going to have better athletes than most that we play why would I want to risk overloading my kids (so I could show off how many things I can do?)
All year we ran our base front (except for nickel or goalline) and ran 2 coverages (excpet for nickel and goalline). We were very successful, only one team broke 20 on us and they were the eventual state champ.
Now I don't think you could do this at a bigger college because there is too much pressure for coaches to out smart the other guy. Even though it could work, as soon as that guy lost everyone would complain how the game isn't that simplistic and he needs to be more complex.
|
|
|
Post by airmale on Jul 2, 2012 17:28:20 GMT -6
If you don't do what you do, you are making a big mistake. You have to be true to yourself in what and more importantly how you coach. Chip Kelly big example. I couldn't coach wing t or I only. It is not who I am and the kids would never buy in.
Same with the big timers. Sure you adjust to your talent. That is called coaching but you still do it your way. Chip Kelly would be uptempo in the double wing. Paul Johnson would be ball control if he had to pass it around alot. They would do what they do. Look at Spurrier at SC. The more he changes the more he stays the Old Ball Coach.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 2, 2012 19:15:29 GMT -6
I don't believe in being different for the sake of being different. But if you know what you're doing it can be to your advantage. We are in a conference that is drifting away from under center power football. We are still in that mode and will remain there.
|
|
|
Post by jturner on Jul 2, 2012 19:42:27 GMT -6
I don't believe in being different for the sake of being different. But if you know what you're doing it can be to your advantage. We are in a conference that is drifting away from under center power football. We are still in that mode and will remain there. I'm with groundchuck. If your O or D is something different from what your opponents play most weeks, you should be in good shape. The reads/keys for defense or blocking scheme/pass pro will be a tad different than previous or upcoming weeks and that helps you out as a team. The other team has to waste practice time in terms of figuring the above things out. Now, are those things a big deal? Somewhat, but the time the other team takes to prepare for your differences slows them down from practicing and repping what they do all the time. This is especially true if your O/D is similar in structure i.e. formation wise or Front, but you do something totally different different. Take the Flexbone and Hybrid Wing T. The formations are very similar, but what they do is different. Even if you play in a league full of Flexbone teams, the Hybrid Wing-T will mess people up. To properly defend both, you must have different reads and keys or you will be in trouble. Add in the fact that some high schools cannot 2 platoon and the time factor adds up as you have to cover both O and D. What also helps you out as a team that runs different stuff, is to have a flexible system/structure in place to help you account for something you may have anticipated. Flexbone, Wing-T, and Run and Shoot teams do a good job of this. The system they have in place allows them to be flexible on game night to still get the job done. It also happens that they live in the extreme, but they have system in place that allows for that to continue.
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 3, 2012 7:41:05 GMT -6
Just ask football analysts. You mean the "experts" who insist on calling Jet Sweep a Reverse? We don't even run Jet Sweep and that irritates me. Drives me nuts too. A reverse can only happen if the ball started in one direction and came back in the other direction!
|
|
|
Post by maximum on Jul 5, 2012 1:30:26 GMT -6
As far as a system I think you stick with what you've had success with as long as its sound. Like for the Airraid, at first it had a lot of success with maybe lesser players when you have good players roll with it. Now if every week you're playing superior teams and to have a chance to win you're running a ton of trick plays and gimmicks and whatever to just try to increase variance (turn the game into a crapshoot) then once your team is good there won't be the need for that. Same with the fourth down stuff or in game, on some level coaches are too conservative on fourth down because its conventional and being in a smaller program takes some of the pressure off to be conventional so you can make the "correct" decision without having to worry about losing a job if you lose from doing something unconventional. On the other hand if you're being super aggressive in marginal situations because you want to give yourself a chance to get lucky and win (crapshoot analogy) then you may not want to do that once you're actually good.
|
|
|
Post by sweep26 on Jul 5, 2012 12:37:37 GMT -6
If you are having success using an 'Extreme' system, and you play in a conference/district vs. good coaches, they will inevitably come up with something that will slow you down (and eventually stop you) if you do not adjust. It does not make any difference what your system is...people will collaborate, and devise methods to stop you if you remain status-quo.
The offense that Coach Mumme put together was outstanding. Other coaches have bought-in to his style of play, and have added to it. Coach Mumme's offense (what ever you want to call it) is still effective today because it did not remain status-quo.
|
|
|
Post by powerfootball71 on Jul 5, 2012 12:51:58 GMT -6
Been thinking it the whole time reading this. Yes his o put up numbers yes a lot of Hs teams have done well in it. But his record is like 12 games over %500 and 40 of those came pre 96 at valdosta. He had one winning season at Kentucky (7-5) and like 4 winning seasons sence 96 only thing I see as extreme is how much press the guy gets.
|
|
|
Post by airmale on Jul 6, 2012 13:48:43 GMT -6
Mumme was an innovator. I haven't noticed anyone else doing great at Kentucky. He spawned alot of success. It seems like most of the posts on this site relate in some way to the Air Raid, Leach, Holgorson, etc... Others may have had more success, but who knows what would have happened if things hadn't gone south at UK.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 6, 2012 14:23:36 GMT -6
Let's not make this about Mumme. If the question is how daring to be once you attain recurring success the best model, to me, is Bobby Bowden. When he took over at FSU he was considered a gambler. Fake kicks and all that. It seems (And I'm only seeing this from a spectator's viewpoint. If I'm wrong I be happy to hear it) that once FSU became a national power they became more conservative.
|
|
|
Post by powerfootball71 on Jul 6, 2012 14:48:48 GMT -6
Let's not make this about Mumme. If the question is how daring to be once you attain recurring success the best model, to me, is Bobby Bowden. When he took over at FSU he was considered a gambler. Fake kicks and all that. It seems (And I'm only seeing this from a spectator's viewpoint. If I'm wrong I be happy to hear it) that once FSU became a national power they became more conservative. Think your spot on with Bowden at fsu. I think BYU and the west coast guys are a great example also. I'm not arguing the influence or the sucsess of the air raid at the Hs level. But one season at west Virginia and some 3erd place finishes in the big 12 don't see the big thing. I don't see a million north Carolina , osu beavers , Virginia tech, Michigan state, Oklahoma or Texas threads. Defently don't see anyone marketing teams that have much higher winning % . To me the focus should be on the practice and the way the air raid guys stream line the system not the offence itself. I feel that's why Hs teams. th at have been middle of the pack or lower to improve but is it that much different then what the good Hs programs have done for years minus the tempo?
|
|
|
Post by powerfootball71 on Jul 6, 2012 14:55:08 GMT -6
Mumme was an innovator. I haven't noticed anyone else doing great at Kentucky. He spawned alot of success. It seems like most of the posts on this site relate in some way to the Air Raid, Leach, Holgorson, etc... Others may have had more success, but who knows what would have happened if things hadn't gon e south at UK. Rich brooks had 4 winning seasons to 1 for mumme at UK
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 6, 2012 15:25:55 GMT -6
Mumme was an innovator. I haven't noticed anyone else doing great at Kentucky. He spawned alot of success. It seems like most of the posts on this site relate in some way to the Air Raid, Leach, Holgorson, etc... Others may have had more success, but who knows what would have happened if things hadn't gon e south at UK. Rich brooks had 4 winning seasons to 1 for mumme at UK Not sure what your point is but Brooks took over from Guy Morriss, not Mumme, and was UK header for seven years compared to Mumme's four. Then again, Brooks and staff didn't commit violations Mumme's did that got him fired, either.
|
|
|
Post by powerfootball71 on Jul 6, 2012 15:30:14 GMT -6
Rich brooks had 4 winning seasons to 1 for mumme at UK Not sure what your point is but Brooks took over from Guy Morriss, not Mumme, and was UK header for seven years compared to Mumme's four. Then again, Brooks and staff didn't commit violations Mumme's did that got him fired, either. Point was there was a recent coach that did ok at Kentucky.
|
|